|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
+ Show Spoiler +On May 03 2020 01:46 JimmiC wrote:
People who keep saying this is equal to Kavanuagh hearings need to really stop, take a breath and think about it. If there is a hearing and it goes as bad for Biden as it did for Kavanuagh sure. But as of right now there is a allegation, with no supporting evidence and in fact the evidence from many many people interviewed is looking like it may of infact not happened.
With Kavanaugh he should have been disqualified, not only because the assault was likely and brought up at the first major step into the spotlight, but because of his behavior during the hearing.
The stories also need to be thought about, is it realistic that a Drunk "beers" sexually assaulted a young woman in her teens, and then never repeated it? Yes it is plausible. Is it plausible that a man in his 50's sober did an overt act of rape and confidently brushed it off, only once ever? Not really, if he did what he is accused of it is very likely he would have done it a ton. This is a Cosby level accusation, not a drunkin mistake (no taking away from the damage caused merely pointing out that one is very likely to have been repeated and one could happen once.
If Biden did this, they will find others, if he was this type of man who abused his power in this way than he almost certainly did it multiple times.
That the Dem haters and Bernie bros are so convinced, and were moments after the accusation where they couldn't wait to get to mud slinging and disingenuously tried to get up on a soap box and shame people who only wanted to wait for the investigation shows both their motives as well their inability to be remotely impartial.
There have been multiple investigations into Biden, he was a public senator forever, he was vice president for 8 years, there was campaign after campaign of his rivals looking for any dirt, and they found some, but never anything like this. Hell there was the entire run up for the democratic party where he was named favorite from the start.
It is highly likely he didn't do it. And it was smart of the democratic party to take a wait and see approach rather then throw out the person that MOST OF THEIR MEMBERS VOTED FOR.
Bernie lost because he didn't have enough support, he was not low on cash, he only had one progressive to rival him while Biden had a ton of moderates. I get you don't like Biden and want Bernie, so do I. But this is getting just plain stupid at this point. And the most ridiculous part is no matter what happens, even if she says under oath she made it up, you still won't change your minds. You are losing all reason and credibility. Being a zealot is not a good thing.
If there is a hearing and it goes as bad for Biden
There won't be a hearing, not even an approximation as mainstream media won't give her the light of day. With Kavanaugh, recall the insatiable demand for more investigation and hearings until evidence was found. Tangentially, Biden was in a hearing involving a woman claiming sexual assault. His performance then has looked more despicable with time.
with no supporting evidence and in fact the evidence from many many people interviewed is looking like it may of infact not happened.
Rather sweeping and premature, don't you think? I'm not aware of any witnesses recanting.
is it realistic... These loose arguments about what's plausible and implausible, and insisting not having committed a crime multiple times as evidence he never did it once, are way too flimsy to warrant strong convictions that there's nothing to see here. About plausibility: if contrived it from whole cloth, why add unnecessary detail about him just having spoken with someone, setting it in a public space, quoting him verbatim, and filing a complaint for which there isn't evidence?
That the Dem haters and Bernie bros are so convinced...
This is resorting to the conservative media's strat of blindly ascribing motives and projecting partisanship rather than directly confronting the issue. Strawmanning like this frankly speaks more to your mental state than it does mine.
I think Sanders would make a vastly better president than Biden, but I'm not hoping for overturning election results and picking Sanders: I'd support any qualified candidate from a fair process. I do want the party to fairly uphold the very clear and unambiguous principles endorsed during the Kavanaugh hearings, which is that a candidate for high office credibly accused is to be subjected to vigorous investigation and rejected on fairly low standards of proof. To decline to apply those principles to their own, and further to resort to fallacious tactics to cover their hypocrisy, is to fail a moral test for the party.
|
Edit: to JC and CS
I'm not going to relitigate this, but apparently both of you have quite short memories. It was clear from the start of the Kavanaugh matter that the truth was irrelevent, which is why the Democrats acted the way they did and the GOP didn't want to reward their scumbaggery. A story about an anonymous person with an allegation from over 30 years ago with no corroboration AND they wanted to keep her identity a secret the whole time, so that we'd never even hear from her. Compare with Biden who isn't even asked a direct question on it for 3+ weeks and is being selectively open while the media more or less runs cover. That Larry King phone call, if it is Reade's mom, has more evidence than all the Kavanaugh stories combined. Meanwhile Ford's friend who was supposedly there said there was no such gathering (her friends tried to pressure her into "remembering" btw). So given how shaky it was from the beginning, and the shocking amount of gamesmanship being played by people like Feinstein, I find the GOP's behavior in that matter not strong enough.
Perhaps it's understandable for non-Americans (although not for anyone in this thread) but the Democrats had a president they defended for decades until simply could not anymore, you may know him as William Jefferson Clinton. They have no high ground. Nevermind that by Biden's own standard he should be treated as guilty.
The idea that there is more evidence for what happened to Ford than Reade is clearly wrong, even if you don't find Reade's story airtight. For my own part I haven't really commented on it because I want more evidence. That phone call is something along those lines that doesn't seem to get the play it deserves.
|
On May 03 2020 04:05 Introvert wrote:
Edit: to JC and CS
I'm not going to relitigate this, but apparently both of you have quite short memories. It was clear from the start of the Kavanaugh matter that the truth was irrelevent, which is why the Democrats acted the way they did and the GOP didn't want to reward their scumbaggery.
[...]
Yeah, if you’re gonna try to start from this premise, then you’re right, re-litigating probably won’t be very productive.
Something I never understood in that episode was how Republicans kept going on about “[the Democrats] scumbaggery” when it wasn’t the Democrats who levied the allegation. Ford did. I understand why it’s electorally beneficial to appear sympathetic to Ford while blaming the whole thing on Democrats, I just don’t know how anybody reconciles it.
|
|
|
On May 03 2020 04:24 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2020 04:05 Introvert wrote:
Edit: to JC and CS
I'm not going to relitigate this, but apparently both of you have quite short memories. It was clear from the start of the Kavanaugh matter that the truth was irrelevent, which is why the Democrats acted the way they did and the GOP didn't want to reward their scumbaggery.
[...] Yeah, if you’re gonna try to start from this premise, then you’re right, re-litigating probably won’t be very productive. Something I never understood in that episode was how Republicans kept going on about “[the Democrats] scumbaggery” when it wasn’t the Democrats who levied the allegation. Ford did. I understand why it’s electorally beneficial to appear sympathetic to Ford while blaming the whole thing on Democrats, I just don’t know how anybody reconciles it.
Because Ford went to Democrat politicians, who took it from there. It's pretty easy really.
|
On May 03 2020 04:25 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2020 04:05 Introvert wrote:
Edit: to JC and CS
I'm not going to relitigate this, but apparently both of you have quite short memories. It was clear from the start of the Kavanaugh matter that the truth was irrelevent, which is why the Democrats acted the way they did and the GOP didn't want to reward their scumbaggery. A story about an anonymous person with an allegation from over 30 years ago with no corroboration AND they wanted to keep her identity a secret the whole time, so that we'd never even hear from her. Compare with Biden who isn't even asked a direct question on it for 3+ weeks and is being selectively open while the media more or less runs cover. That Larry King phone call, if it is Reade's mom, has more evidence than all the Kavanaugh stories combined. Meanwhile Ford's friend who was supposedly there said there was no such gathering (her friends tried to pressure her into "remembering" btw). So given how shaky it was from the beginning, and the shocking amount of gamesmanship being played by people like Feinstein, I find the GOP's behavior in that matter not strong enough.
Perhaps it's understandable for non-Americans (although not for anyone in this thread) but the Democrats had a president they defended for decades until simply could not anymore, you may know him as William Jefferson Clinton. They have no high ground. Nevermind that by Biden's own standard he should be treated as guilty.
The idea that there is more evidence for what happened to Ford than Reade is clearly wrong, even if you don't find Reade's story airtight. For my own part I haven't really commented on it because I want more evidence. That phone call is something along those lines that doesn't seem to get the play it deserves. I have not said whether Reade's is true or not, because I like every one but her and Biden don't know. I also said that Kavanaugh should be removed because of how he acted during the hearing, he broke several rules in regards to his clear partisanship, which is not allowed for Judges. There was a reason many, including many republican judges signed a petition about him. There was a lot more evidence with Ford because we were much further down the path, that you choose to ignore it is on you. Regardless of whether it was true or not, Kavanaugh was proven beyond a doubt to be a partisan stooge and unfit for the supreme court. You only remember it different because you are a Republican. I get that it makes it easier for you to believe I'm a democrat, I'm not. And the reporting we get to read because we did not remove the fairness in news laws allows us to actually get a clearer picture of what is happening. Show nested quote +On May 03 2020 04:04 Savant wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 03 2020 01:46 JimmiC wrote:
People who keep saying this is equal to Kavanuagh hearings need to really stop, take a breath and think about it. If there is a hearing and it goes as bad for Biden as it did for Kavanuagh sure. But as of right now there is a allegation, with no supporting evidence and in fact the evidence from many many people interviewed is looking like it may of infact not happened.
With Kavanaugh he should have been disqualified, not only because the assault was likely and brought up at the first major step into the spotlight, but because of his behavior during the hearing.
The stories also need to be thought about, is it realistic that a Drunk "beers" sexually assaulted a young woman in her teens, and then never repeated it? Yes it is plausible. Is it plausible that a man in his 50's sober did an overt act of rape and confidently brushed it off, only once ever? Not really, if he did what he is accused of it is very likely he would have done it a ton. This is a Cosby level accusation, not a drunkin mistake (no taking away from the damage caused merely pointing out that one is very likely to have been repeated and one could happen once.
If Biden did this, they will find others, if he was this type of man who abused his power in this way than he almost certainly did it multiple times.
That the Dem haters and Bernie bros are so convinced, and were moments after the accusation where they couldn't wait to get to mud slinging and disingenuously tried to get up on a soap box and shame people who only wanted to wait for the investigation shows both their motives as well their inability to be remotely impartial.
There have been multiple investigations into Biden, he was a public senator forever, he was vice president for 8 years, there was campaign after campaign of his rivals looking for any dirt, and they found some, but never anything like this. Hell there was the entire run up for the democratic party where he was named favorite from the start.
It is highly likely he didn't do it. And it was smart of the democratic party to take a wait and see approach rather then throw out the person that MOST OF THEIR MEMBERS VOTED FOR.
Bernie lost because he didn't have enough support, he was not low on cash, he only had one progressive to rival him while Biden had a ton of moderates. I get you don't like Biden and want Bernie, so do I. But this is getting just plain stupid at this point. And the most ridiculous part is no matter what happens, even if she says under oath she made it up, you still won't change your minds. You are losing all reason and credibility. Being a zealot is not a good thing.
If there is a hearing and it goes as bad for Biden
There won't be a hearing, not even an approximation as mainstream media won't give her the light of day. With Kavanaugh, recall the insatiable demand for more investigation and hearings until evidence was found. Tangentially, Biden was in a hearing involving a woman claiming sexual assault. His performance then has looked more despicable with time.
with no supporting evidence and in fact the evidence from many many people interviewed is looking like it may of infact not happened.
Rather sweeping and premature, don't you think? I'm not aware of any witnesses recanting. is it realistic... These loose arguments about what's plausible and implausible, and insisting not having committed a crime multiple times as evidence he never did it once, are way too flimsy to warrant strong convictions that there's nothing to see here. About plausibility: if contrived it from whole cloth, why add unnecessary detail about him just having spoken with someone, setting it in a public space, quoting him verbatim, and filing a complaint for which there isn't evidence?
That the Dem haters and Bernie bros are so convinced...
This is resorting to the conservative media's strat of blindly ascribing motives and projecting partisanship rather than directly confronting the issue. Strawmanning like this frankly speaks more to your mental state than it does mine. I think Sanders would make a vastly better president than Biden, but I'm not hoping for overturning election results and picking Sanders: I'd support any qualified candidate from a fair process. I do want the party to fairly uphold the very clear and unambiguous principles endorsed during the Kavanaugh hearings, which is that a candidate for high office credibly accused is to be subjected to vigorous investigation and rejected on fairly low standards of proof. To decline to apply those principles to their own, and further to resort to fallacious tactics to cover their hypocrisy, is to fail a moral test for the party. I linked three stories, from 3 major mainstream news sources where they most certainly do shine the light of day on it and so much more. Check a couple pages back. That you have been misinformed in your bubble is on you not me. It is not premature to say "it is looking like", that clearly shows I have not made that conclusion, unlike the people who have presumed Bidens guilt from before this even happened. If you want to know why it is looking like it, look back at PhoenixVoid's post and Mohoo's they both link sources. There are people that regularly post on this thread that a good 80% of their posts are hating on the Dem's. And facts have never mattered to them. It is not a strawman it is a apt description, as is starbucks communist.
being accused of partisan blindness is so tiring from someone so obviously afflicted with it that they have said multiple times in the past that Democrats hold themselves to a higher standard while ignoring all the times they don't, including, you know, the big ones.
Ford's evidence was her own story and some vague notes. Meanwhile, her primary witness denies any such even takes place. But somehow that story is more plasuible than what we have from Reade. I think that assertion speaks for itself.
As to your second point, like I said Biden was only asked about it directly yesterday. And instead of rushing to condemn him like they did Kavanaugh, the media is once again very concerned with process and evidence. How many weeks was it before anyone asked Reade to go on their shows, besides Fox? The coverage is clearly different.
|
On May 03 2020 04:26 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2020 04:24 ChristianS wrote:On May 03 2020 04:05 Introvert wrote:
Edit: to JC and CS
I'm not going to relitigate this, but apparently both of you have quite short memories. It was clear from the start of the Kavanaugh matter that the truth was irrelevent, which is why the Democrats acted the way they did and the GOP didn't want to reward their scumbaggery.
[...] Yeah, if you’re gonna try to start from this premise, then you’re right, re-litigating probably won’t be very productive. Something I never understood in that episode was how Republicans kept going on about “[the Democrats] scumbaggery” when it wasn’t the Democrats who levied the allegation. Ford did. I understand why it’s electorally beneficial to appear sympathetic to Ford while blaming the whole thing on Democrats, I just don’t know how anybody reconciles it. Because Ford went to Democrat politicians, who took it from there. It's pretty easy really.
And they should have... what, told the accuser who wants to come forward to keep it to herself? I mean, you’re starting from “OBVIOUSLY the truth was irrelevant” so then by definition Democrats saying “we should pursue more evidence” must be lying, but you have yet to justify the premise.
Republicans had 3 choices:
a) investigate the allegations, and confirm him if nothing comes up.
b) withdraw the nomination and put forward someone else.
c) push the vote through before anybody has a chance to investigate or look for proof.
Every Republican but Flake wanted c); he wanted a) but had to settle for c’), a cursory 1-week investigation. The reason was clear: if they fully investigated and something DID come up, they might not have time to put someone else through before the new session of Congress. As usual Republicans commitment to winning is far stronger than their commitment to any particular principle, so they went ahead the way they did.
The Democrats’ “scumbaggery” consisted of making the allegations public and calling for a federal investigation to determine their veracity. You’re welcome to justify, rather than just assert, why the Democrats were the ones who didn’t care what the truth was.
|
On May 03 2020 04:39 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2020 04:26 Introvert wrote:On May 03 2020 04:24 ChristianS wrote:On May 03 2020 04:05 Introvert wrote:
Edit: to JC and CS
I'm not going to relitigate this, but apparently both of you have quite short memories. It was clear from the start of the Kavanaugh matter that the truth was irrelevent, which is why the Democrats acted the way they did and the GOP didn't want to reward their scumbaggery.
[...] Yeah, if you’re gonna try to start from this premise, then you’re right, re-litigating probably won’t be very productive. Something I never understood in that episode was how Republicans kept going on about “[the Democrats] scumbaggery” when it wasn’t the Democrats who levied the allegation. Ford did. I understand why it’s electorally beneficial to appear sympathetic to Ford while blaming the whole thing on Democrats, I just don’t know how anybody reconciles it. Because Ford went to Democrat politicians, who took it from there. It's pretty easy really. And they should have... what, told the accuser who wants to come forward to keep it to herself? I mean, you’re starting from “OBVIOUSLY the truth was irrelevant” so then by definition Democrats saying “we should pursue more evidence” must be lying, but you have yet to justify the premise. Republicans had 3 choices: a) investigate the allegations, and confirm him if nothing comes up. b) withdraw the nomination and put forward someone else. c) push the vote through before anybody has a chance to investigate or look for proof. Every Republican but Flake wanted c); he wanted a) but had to settle for c’), a cursory 1-week investigation. The reason was clear: if they fully investigated and something DID come up, they might not have time to put someone else through before the new session of Congress. As usual Republicans commitment to winning is far stronger than their commitment to any particular principle, so they went ahead the way they did. The Democrats’ “scumbaggery” consisted of making the allegations public and calling for a federal investigation to determine their veracity. You’re welcome to justify, rather than just assert, why the Democrats were the ones who didn’t care what the truth was.
The scumbaggery began when they waited until the very last minute (after all the hearings were done) and then tried to hide Ford. That's just where it started, I make no mention here of what happened after they story got legs. You have apparently condensed the entire saga into almost a day when it lasted about three weeks (that's only counting when the first story was published to the vote).
|
On May 03 2020 04:43 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2020 04:39 ChristianS wrote:On May 03 2020 04:26 Introvert wrote:On May 03 2020 04:24 ChristianS wrote:On May 03 2020 04:05 Introvert wrote:
Edit: to JC and CS
I'm not going to relitigate this, but apparently both of you have quite short memories. It was clear from the start of the Kavanaugh matter that the truth was irrelevent, which is why the Democrats acted the way they did and the GOP didn't want to reward their scumbaggery.
[...] Yeah, if you’re gonna try to start from this premise, then you’re right, re-litigating probably won’t be very productive. Something I never understood in that episode was how Republicans kept going on about “[the Democrats] scumbaggery” when it wasn’t the Democrats who levied the allegation. Ford did. I understand why it’s electorally beneficial to appear sympathetic to Ford while blaming the whole thing on Democrats, I just don’t know how anybody reconciles it. Because Ford went to Democrat politicians, who took it from there. It's pretty easy really. And they should have... what, told the accuser who wants to come forward to keep it to herself? I mean, you’re starting from “OBVIOUSLY the truth was irrelevant” so then by definition Democrats saying “we should pursue more evidence” must be lying, but you have yet to justify the premise. Republicans had 3 choices: a) investigate the allegations, and confirm him if nothing comes up. b) withdraw the nomination and put forward someone else. c) push the vote through before anybody has a chance to investigate or look for proof. Every Republican but Flake wanted c); he wanted a) but had to settle for c’), a cursory 1-week investigation. The reason was clear: if they fully investigated and something DID come up, they might not have time to put someone else through before the new session of Congress. As usual Republicans commitment to winning is far stronger than their commitment to any particular principle, so they went ahead the way they did. The Democrats’ “scumbaggery” consisted of making the allegations public and calling for a federal investigation to determine their veracity. You’re welcome to justify, rather than just assert, why the Democrats were the ones who didn’t care what the truth was. The scumbaggery began when they waited until the very last minute (after all the hearings were done) and then tried to hide Ford. That's just where it started, I make no mention here of what happened after they story got legs. You have apparently condensed the entire saga into almost the day when it lasted about three weeks (that's only counting when the first story was published to the vote).
Iirc she initially didn’t want to come forward, and they were respecting her wishes? Maybe I should clarify that I also would have been sympathetic to a Republican saying “if an anonymous accuser exists but doesn’t want to come forward or tell her story, presumption of innocence should hold,” but that’s not what happened so it doesn’t matter if that’s what Republicans’ line would have been.
|
On May 03 2020 04:48 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2020 04:43 Introvert wrote:On May 03 2020 04:39 ChristianS wrote:On May 03 2020 04:26 Introvert wrote:On May 03 2020 04:24 ChristianS wrote:On May 03 2020 04:05 Introvert wrote:
Edit: to JC and CS
I'm not going to relitigate this, but apparently both of you have quite short memories. It was clear from the start of the Kavanaugh matter that the truth was irrelevent, which is why the Democrats acted the way they did and the GOP didn't want to reward their scumbaggery.
[...] Yeah, if you’re gonna try to start from this premise, then you’re right, re-litigating probably won’t be very productive. Something I never understood in that episode was how Republicans kept going on about “[the Democrats] scumbaggery” when it wasn’t the Democrats who levied the allegation. Ford did. I understand why it’s electorally beneficial to appear sympathetic to Ford while blaming the whole thing on Democrats, I just don’t know how anybody reconciles it. Because Ford went to Democrat politicians, who took it from there. It's pretty easy really. And they should have... what, told the accuser who wants to come forward to keep it to herself? I mean, you’re starting from “OBVIOUSLY the truth was irrelevant” so then by definition Democrats saying “we should pursue more evidence” must be lying, but you have yet to justify the premise. Republicans had 3 choices: a) investigate the allegations, and confirm him if nothing comes up. b) withdraw the nomination and put forward someone else. c) push the vote through before anybody has a chance to investigate or look for proof. Every Republican but Flake wanted c); he wanted a) but had to settle for c’), a cursory 1-week investigation. The reason was clear: if they fully investigated and something DID come up, they might not have time to put someone else through before the new session of Congress. As usual Republicans commitment to winning is far stronger than their commitment to any particular principle, so they went ahead the way they did. The Democrats’ “scumbaggery” consisted of making the allegations public and calling for a federal investigation to determine their veracity. You’re welcome to justify, rather than just assert, why the Democrats were the ones who didn’t care what the truth was. The scumbaggery began when they waited until the very last minute (after all the hearings were done) and then tried to hide Ford. That's just where it started, I make no mention here of what happened after they story got legs. You have apparently condensed the entire saga into almost the day when it lasted about three weeks (that's only counting when the first story was published to the vote). Iirc she initially didn’t want to come forward, and they were respecting her wishes? Maybe I should clarify that I also would have been sympathetic to a Republican saying “if an anonymous accuser exists but doesn’t want to come forward or tell her story, presumption of innocence should hold,” but that’s not what happened so it doesn’t matter if that’s what Republicans’ line would have been.
i think i said this at the time, but if she was actually ignorant enough to think that anonymity was possible in that situation then the politicians she contacted should have told her it was not when she brought them the story (in July I think?). It was always going to be an impossibility, and obviously so.
|
On May 03 2020 04:51 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2020 04:48 ChristianS wrote:On May 03 2020 04:43 Introvert wrote:On May 03 2020 04:39 ChristianS wrote:On May 03 2020 04:26 Introvert wrote:On May 03 2020 04:24 ChristianS wrote:On May 03 2020 04:05 Introvert wrote:
Edit: to JC and CS
I'm not going to relitigate this, but apparently both of you have quite short memories. It was clear from the start of the Kavanaugh matter that the truth was irrelevent, which is why the Democrats acted the way they did and the GOP didn't want to reward their scumbaggery.
[...] Yeah, if you’re gonna try to start from this premise, then you’re right, re-litigating probably won’t be very productive. Something I never understood in that episode was how Republicans kept going on about “[the Democrats] scumbaggery” when it wasn’t the Democrats who levied the allegation. Ford did. I understand why it’s electorally beneficial to appear sympathetic to Ford while blaming the whole thing on Democrats, I just don’t know how anybody reconciles it. Because Ford went to Democrat politicians, who took it from there. It's pretty easy really. And they should have... what, told the accuser who wants to come forward to keep it to herself? I mean, you’re starting from “OBVIOUSLY the truth was irrelevant” so then by definition Democrats saying “we should pursue more evidence” must be lying, but you have yet to justify the premise. Republicans had 3 choices: a) investigate the allegations, and confirm him if nothing comes up. b) withdraw the nomination and put forward someone else. c) push the vote through before anybody has a chance to investigate or look for proof. Every Republican but Flake wanted c); he wanted a) but had to settle for c’), a cursory 1-week investigation. The reason was clear: if they fully investigated and something DID come up, they might not have time to put someone else through before the new session of Congress. As usual Republicans commitment to winning is far stronger than their commitment to any particular principle, so they went ahead the way they did. The Democrats’ “scumbaggery” consisted of making the allegations public and calling for a federal investigation to determine their veracity. You’re welcome to justify, rather than just assert, why the Democrats were the ones who didn’t care what the truth was. The scumbaggery began when they waited until the very last minute (after all the hearings were done) and then tried to hide Ford. That's just where it started, I make no mention here of what happened after they story got legs. You have apparently condensed the entire saga into almost the day when it lasted about three weeks (that's only counting when the first story was published to the vote). Iirc she initially didn’t want to come forward, and they were respecting her wishes? Maybe I should clarify that I also would have been sympathetic to a Republican saying “if an anonymous accuser exists but doesn’t want to come forward or tell her story, presumption of innocence should hold,” but that’s not what happened so it doesn’t matter if that’s what Republicans’ line would have been. i think i said this at the time, but if she was actually ignorant enough to think that anonymity was possible in that situation then the politicians she contacted should have told her that when she brought them the story (in July I think?). It was always going to be an impossibility, and obviously so.
IIRC they did. She thought her story might be relevant if other accusers had come forward; she was told they hadn’t and if she didn’t want to come forward they couldn’t bring it up in the hearings (which they didn’t). Then there were anonymous leaks and she still said she didn’t want to come forward so Democrats said they wanted to keep her anonymous; then she agreed to come forward.
Have I heard any justification for not conducting an investigation from you yet? Other than “OBVIOUSLY the truth didn’t matter so there was no point” I don’t think I have. But do you think the truth should matter? If not, what possible justification is there for not conducting a full investigation?
|
On May 03 2020 04:58 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2020 04:51 Introvert wrote:On May 03 2020 04:48 ChristianS wrote:On May 03 2020 04:43 Introvert wrote:On May 03 2020 04:39 ChristianS wrote:On May 03 2020 04:26 Introvert wrote:On May 03 2020 04:24 ChristianS wrote:On May 03 2020 04:05 Introvert wrote:
Edit: to JC and CS
I'm not going to relitigate this, but apparently both of you have quite short memories. It was clear from the start of the Kavanaugh matter that the truth was irrelevent, which is why the Democrats acted the way they did and the GOP didn't want to reward their scumbaggery.
[...] Yeah, if you’re gonna try to start from this premise, then you’re right, re-litigating probably won’t be very productive. Something I never understood in that episode was how Republicans kept going on about “[the Democrats] scumbaggery” when it wasn’t the Democrats who levied the allegation. Ford did. I understand why it’s electorally beneficial to appear sympathetic to Ford while blaming the whole thing on Democrats, I just don’t know how anybody reconciles it. Because Ford went to Democrat politicians, who took it from there. It's pretty easy really. And they should have... what, told the accuser who wants to come forward to keep it to herself? I mean, you’re starting from “OBVIOUSLY the truth was irrelevant” so then by definition Democrats saying “we should pursue more evidence” must be lying, but you have yet to justify the premise. Republicans had 3 choices: a) investigate the allegations, and confirm him if nothing comes up. b) withdraw the nomination and put forward someone else. c) push the vote through before anybody has a chance to investigate or look for proof. Every Republican but Flake wanted c); he wanted a) but had to settle for c’), a cursory 1-week investigation. The reason was clear: if they fully investigated and something DID come up, they might not have time to put someone else through before the new session of Congress. As usual Republicans commitment to winning is far stronger than their commitment to any particular principle, so they went ahead the way they did. The Democrats’ “scumbaggery” consisted of making the allegations public and calling for a federal investigation to determine their veracity. You’re welcome to justify, rather than just assert, why the Democrats were the ones who didn’t care what the truth was. The scumbaggery began when they waited until the very last minute (after all the hearings were done) and then tried to hide Ford. That's just where it started, I make no mention here of what happened after they story got legs. You have apparently condensed the entire saga into almost the day when it lasted about three weeks (that's only counting when the first story was published to the vote). Iirc she initially didn’t want to come forward, and they were respecting her wishes? Maybe I should clarify that I also would have been sympathetic to a Republican saying “if an anonymous accuser exists but doesn’t want to come forward or tell her story, presumption of innocence should hold,” but that’s not what happened so it doesn’t matter if that’s what Republicans’ line would have been. i think i said this at the time, but if she was actually ignorant enough to think that anonymity was possible in that situation then the politicians she contacted should have told her that when she brought them the story (in July I think?). It was always going to be an impossibility, and obviously so. IIRC they did. She thought her story might be relevant if other accusers had come forward; she was told they hadn’t and if she didn’t want to come forward they couldn’t bring it up in the hearings (which they didn’t). Then there were anonymous leaks and she still said she didn’t want to come forward so Democrats said they wanted to keep her anonymous; then she agreed to come forward. Have I heard any justification for not conducting an investigation from you yet? Other than “OBVIOUSLY the truth didn’t matter so there was no point” I don’t think I have. But do you think the truth should matter? If not, what possible justification is there for not conducting a full investigation?
you think some staffer leaked it on their own? near the very end of the process? They had nothing to stop his confirmation so they went for the hail mary.
I think we had all the evidence we could possibly have had well before we needed yet more FBI involvement. It was another stall tactic. I'd have to check my posts, but I'm pretty sure that it was obvious from early on that the evidence was light. I was probably annoyed but open to (skeptically) hearing her out, publicly, at the start.
|
On May 03 2020 05:12 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2020 04:58 ChristianS wrote:On May 03 2020 04:51 Introvert wrote:On May 03 2020 04:48 ChristianS wrote:On May 03 2020 04:43 Introvert wrote:On May 03 2020 04:39 ChristianS wrote:On May 03 2020 04:26 Introvert wrote:On May 03 2020 04:24 ChristianS wrote:On May 03 2020 04:05 Introvert wrote:
Edit: to JC and CS
I'm not going to relitigate this, but apparently both of you have quite short memories. It was clear from the start of the Kavanaugh matter that the truth was irrelevent, which is why the Democrats acted the way they did and the GOP didn't want to reward their scumbaggery.
[...] Yeah, if you’re gonna try to start from this premise, then you’re right, re-litigating probably won’t be very productive. Something I never understood in that episode was how Republicans kept going on about “[the Democrats] scumbaggery” when it wasn’t the Democrats who levied the allegation. Ford did. I understand why it’s electorally beneficial to appear sympathetic to Ford while blaming the whole thing on Democrats, I just don’t know how anybody reconciles it. Because Ford went to Democrat politicians, who took it from there. It's pretty easy really. And they should have... what, told the accuser who wants to come forward to keep it to herself? I mean, you’re starting from “OBVIOUSLY the truth was irrelevant” so then by definition Democrats saying “we should pursue more evidence” must be lying, but you have yet to justify the premise. Republicans had 3 choices: a) investigate the allegations, and confirm him if nothing comes up. b) withdraw the nomination and put forward someone else. c) push the vote through before anybody has a chance to investigate or look for proof. Every Republican but Flake wanted c); he wanted a) but had to settle for c’), a cursory 1-week investigation. The reason was clear: if they fully investigated and something DID come up, they might not have time to put someone else through before the new session of Congress. As usual Republicans commitment to winning is far stronger than their commitment to any particular principle, so they went ahead the way they did. The Democrats’ “scumbaggery” consisted of making the allegations public and calling for a federal investigation to determine their veracity. You’re welcome to justify, rather than just assert, why the Democrats were the ones who didn’t care what the truth was. The scumbaggery began when they waited until the very last minute (after all the hearings were done) and then tried to hide Ford. That's just where it started, I make no mention here of what happened after they story got legs. You have apparently condensed the entire saga into almost the day when it lasted about three weeks (that's only counting when the first story was published to the vote). Iirc she initially didn’t want to come forward, and they were respecting her wishes? Maybe I should clarify that I also would have been sympathetic to a Republican saying “if an anonymous accuser exists but doesn’t want to come forward or tell her story, presumption of innocence should hold,” but that’s not what happened so it doesn’t matter if that’s what Republicans’ line would have been. i think i said this at the time, but if she was actually ignorant enough to think that anonymity was possible in that situation then the politicians she contacted should have told her that when she brought them the story (in July I think?). It was always going to be an impossibility, and obviously so. IIRC they did. She thought her story might be relevant if other accusers had come forward; she was told they hadn’t and if she didn’t want to come forward they couldn’t bring it up in the hearings (which they didn’t). Then there were anonymous leaks and she still said she didn’t want to come forward so Democrats said they wanted to keep her anonymous; then she agreed to come forward. Have I heard any justification for not conducting an investigation from you yet? Other than “OBVIOUSLY the truth didn’t matter so there was no point” I don’t think I have. But do you think the truth should matter? If not, what possible justification is there for not conducting a full investigation? you think some staffer leaked it on their own? near the very end of the process? They had nothing to stop his confirmation so they went for the hail mary. I think we had all the evidence we could possibly have had well before we needed yet more FBI involvement. It was another stall tactic. I'd have to check my posts, but I'm pretty sure that it was obvious from early on that the evidence was light. I was probably annoyed but open to (skeptically) hearing her out, publicly, at the start.
Do you have evidence to contradict the bolded? It sounds like you think this was some planned strategy from the Democrats, but it’s a bit rich to assert in the midst of a conversation in which “presumption of innocence” already weighs so heavily.
I mean, two more accusers came out before the Republicans had a chance to put together a hearing, so presumably we didn’t have all the evidence at the start. The evidence at the start is always light, that’s what investigations are for.
|
On May 03 2020 04:24 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2020 04:05 Introvert wrote:
Edit: to JC and CS
I'm not going to relitigate this, but apparently both of you have quite short memories. It was clear from the start of the Kavanaugh matter that the truth was irrelevent, which is why the Democrats acted the way they did and the GOP didn't want to reward their scumbaggery.
[...] Yeah, if you’re gonna try to start from this premise, then you’re right, re-litigating probably won’t be very productive. Something I never understood in that episode was how Republicans kept going on about “[the Democrats] scumbaggery” when it wasn’t the Democrats who levied the allegation. Ford did. I understand why it’s electorally beneficial to appear sympathetic to Ford while blaming the whole thing on Democrats, I just don’t know how anybody reconciles it.
Before Biden's interview on Morning Joe they ran about 5 minutes of compilation footage of talking about how Democrat pundits and journalists had basically convicted Kavanaugh. The "her story should be considered real and she should be given the benefit of the doubt" are Joe Biden's own words.
The most obvious is the NYT story taking out the end of the sentence of what has become Biden's campaign go to exculpatory phrase.+ Show Spoiler +
Obviously many Republicans are hypocrites on this as well.
|
On May 03 2020 06:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2020 04:24 ChristianS wrote:On May 03 2020 04:05 Introvert wrote:
Edit: to JC and CS
I'm not going to relitigate this, but apparently both of you have quite short memories. It was clear from the start of the Kavanaugh matter that the truth was irrelevent, which is why the Democrats acted the way they did and the GOP didn't want to reward their scumbaggery.
[...] Yeah, if you’re gonna try to start from this premise, then you’re right, re-litigating probably won’t be very productive. Something I never understood in that episode was how Republicans kept going on about “[the Democrats] scumbaggery” when it wasn’t the Democrats who levied the allegation. Ford did. I understand why it’s electorally beneficial to appear sympathetic to Ford while blaming the whole thing on Democrats, I just don’t know how anybody reconciles it. Before Biden's interview on Morning Joe they ran about 5 minutes of compilation footage of talking about how Democrat pundits and journalists had basically convicted Kavanaugh. The "her story should be considered real and she should be given the benefit of the doubt" are Joe Biden's own words. The most obvious is the NYT story taking out the end of the sentence of what has become Biden's campaign go to exculpatory phrase. + Show Spoiler +Obviously many Republicans are hypocrites on this as well.
I mean, I don’t know what pundits said at the time, but I think the position “we should presume guilt” sucked then and sucks now. Certainly I think quite a few people on the left went wide-eyed at the slim chance of getting a Supreme Court seat out of it, and that’s unprincipled and opportunistic.
But at some point people are gonna have to figure out how we actually think these allegations should be handled. I think taking them seriously and investigating thoroughly, but with a presumption of innocence in ambiguous cases, is a reasonable standard. Or maybe it’s not even that I think it’s reasonable so much as that I’m not even sure what the alternative is.
|
On May 03 2020 06:27 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2020 06:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2020 04:24 ChristianS wrote:On May 03 2020 04:05 Introvert wrote:
Edit: to JC and CS
I'm not going to relitigate this, but apparently both of you have quite short memories. It was clear from the start of the Kavanaugh matter that the truth was irrelevent, which is why the Democrats acted the way they did and the GOP didn't want to reward their scumbaggery.
[...] Yeah, if you’re gonna try to start from this premise, then you’re right, re-litigating probably won’t be very productive. Something I never understood in that episode was how Republicans kept going on about “[the Democrats] scumbaggery” when it wasn’t the Democrats who levied the allegation. Ford did. I understand why it’s electorally beneficial to appear sympathetic to Ford while blaming the whole thing on Democrats, I just don’t know how anybody reconciles it. Before Biden's interview on Morning Joe they ran about 5 minutes of compilation footage of talking about how Democrat pundits and journalists had basically convicted Kavanaugh. The "her story should be considered real and she should be given the benefit of the doubt" are Joe Biden's own words. The most obvious is the NYT story taking out the end of the sentence of what has become Biden's campaign go to exculpatory phrase. + Show Spoiler +Obviously many Republicans are hypocrites on this as well. I mean, I don’t know what pundits said at the time, but I think the position “we should presume guilt” sucked then and sucks now. Certainly I think quite a few people on the left went wide-eyed at the slim chance of getting a Supreme Court seat out of it, and that’s unprincipled and opportunistic. But at some point people are gonna have to figure out how we actually think these allegations should be handled. I think taking them seriously and investigating thoroughly, but with a presumption of innocence in ambiguous cases, is a reasonable standard. Or maybe it’s not even that I think it’s reasonable so much as that I’m not even sure what the alternative is.
I would agree that it's reasonable.
|
On May 03 2020 06:27 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2020 06:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2020 04:24 ChristianS wrote:On May 03 2020 04:05 Introvert wrote:
Edit: to JC and CS
I'm not going to relitigate this, but apparently both of you have quite short memories. It was clear from the start of the Kavanaugh matter that the truth was irrelevent, which is why the Democrats acted the way they did and the GOP didn't want to reward their scumbaggery.
[...] Yeah, if you’re gonna try to start from this premise, then you’re right, re-litigating probably won’t be very productive. Something I never understood in that episode was how Republicans kept going on about “[the Democrats] scumbaggery” when it wasn’t the Democrats who levied the allegation. Ford did. I understand why it’s electorally beneficial to appear sympathetic to Ford while blaming the whole thing on Democrats, I just don’t know how anybody reconciles it. Before Biden's interview on Morning Joe they ran about 5 minutes of compilation footage of talking about how Democrat pundits and journalists had basically convicted Kavanaugh. The "her story should be considered real and she should be given the benefit of the doubt" are Joe Biden's own words. The most obvious is the NYT story taking out the end of the sentence of what has become Biden's campaign go to exculpatory phrase. + Show Spoiler +Obviously many Republicans are hypocrites on this as well. I mean, I don’t know what pundits said at the time, but I think the position “we should presume guilt” sucked then and sucks now. Certainly I think quite a few people on the left went wide-eyed at the slim chance of getting a Supreme Court seat out of it, and that’s unprincipled and opportunistic. But at some point people are gonna have to figure out how we actually think these allegations should be handled. I think taking them seriously and investigating thoroughly, but with a presumption of innocence in ambiguous cases, is a reasonable standard. Or maybe it’s not even that I think it’s reasonable so much as that I’m not even sure what the alternative is.
Lots of people (including Morning Joe) do remember. The unprincipled and opportunistic treatment of Kavanaugh and the cynical exploitation of Ford is made more stark by their notably different reaction to Reade's allegations against Biden.
"presumption of innocence" is a legal threshold, not a social one. Suppose I'd get followed less in the store if it was a social one lol. The bar for putting Biden in prison isn't the same for not hiring him for president
|
On May 03 2020 04:05 Introvert wrote:
Edit: to JC and CS
I'm not going to relitigate this, but apparently both of you have quite short memories. It was clear from the start of the Kavanaugh matter that the truth was irrelevent, which is why the Democrats acted the way they did and the GOP didn't want to reward their scumbaggery. A story about an anonymous person with an allegation from over 30 years ago with no corroboration AND they wanted to keep her identity a secret the whole time, so that we'd never even hear from her. Compare with Biden who isn't even asked a direct question on it for 3+ weeks and is being selectively open while the media more or less runs cover. That Larry King phone call, if it is Reade's mom, has more evidence than all the Kavanaugh stories combined. Meanwhile Ford's friend who was supposedly there said there was no such gathering (her friends tried to pressure her into "remembering" btw). So given how shaky it was from the beginning, and the shocking amount of gamesmanship being played by people like Feinstein, I find the GOP's behavior in that matter not strong enough.
Perhaps it's understandable for non-Americans (although not for anyone in this thread) but the Democrats had a president they defended for decades until simply could not anymore, you may know him as William Jefferson Clinton. They have no high ground. Nevermind that by Biden's own standard he should be treated as guilty.
The idea that there is more evidence for what happened to Ford than Reade is clearly wrong, even if you don't find Reade's story airtight. For my own part I haven't really commented on it because I want more evidence. That phone call is something along those lines that doesn't seem to get the play it deserves.
The phone call doesn't say anything about a sexual assault, it is extremely vague, and now that Biden gave the go to publicize immediately any complaint made against him, Reade says that the complaint doesn't say anything about a sexual assault either.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tara-reade-harassment-assault-absent-biden-complaint
Her brother and one neighbor corroborate somewhat. A few others on condition of anonymity.
It's pretty light. There's about the same amount of "proof" than with Kavanaugh. What was unacceptable/disqualifying with Kavanaugh was his behaviour.
|
|
|
On May 03 2020 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2020 06:27 ChristianS wrote:On May 03 2020 06:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2020 04:24 ChristianS wrote:On May 03 2020 04:05 Introvert wrote:
Edit: to JC and CS
I'm not going to relitigate this, but apparently both of you have quite short memories. It was clear from the start of the Kavanaugh matter that the truth was irrelevent, which is why the Democrats acted the way they did and the GOP didn't want to reward their scumbaggery.
[...] Yeah, if you’re gonna try to start from this premise, then you’re right, re-litigating probably won’t be very productive. Something I never understood in that episode was how Republicans kept going on about “[the Democrats] scumbaggery” when it wasn’t the Democrats who levied the allegation. Ford did. I understand why it’s electorally beneficial to appear sympathetic to Ford while blaming the whole thing on Democrats, I just don’t know how anybody reconciles it. Before Biden's interview on Morning Joe they ran about 5 minutes of compilation footage of talking about how Democrat pundits and journalists had basically convicted Kavanaugh. The "her story should be considered real and she should be given the benefit of the doubt" are Joe Biden's own words. The most obvious is the NYT story taking out the end of the sentence of what has become Biden's campaign go to exculpatory phrase. + Show Spoiler +Obviously many Republicans are hypocrites on this as well. I mean, I don’t know what pundits said at the time, but I think the position “we should presume guilt” sucked then and sucks now. Certainly I think quite a few people on the left went wide-eyed at the slim chance of getting a Supreme Court seat out of it, and that’s unprincipled and opportunistic. But at some point people are gonna have to figure out how we actually think these allegations should be handled. I think taking them seriously and investigating thoroughly, but with a presumption of innocence in ambiguous cases, is a reasonable standard. Or maybe it’s not even that I think it’s reasonable so much as that I’m not even sure what the alternative is. Lots of people (including Morning Joe) do remember. The unprincipled and opportunistic treatment of Kavanaugh and the cynical exploitation of Ford is made more stark by their notably different reaction to Reade's allegations against Biden. "presumption of innocence" is a legal threshold, not a social one. Suppose I'd get followed less in the store if it was a social one lol. The bar for putting Biden in prison isn't the same for not hiring him for president
Presumption of innocence isn’t a threshold at all, “beyond reasonable doubt” is. I agree that “beyond reasonable doubt” is too high a threshold for non-criminal judgments about these types of cases though.
I really wish this allegation had come out before the nomination was basically clinched. Ideally early enough that there had been plenty of time to investigate before Iowa. Then voters could decide for themselves whether the evidence was strong enough. As it is it’s basically the DNC’s job to decide whether the allegations are strong enough to warrant overturning the democratic process. Voters only get to decide whether the allegations are strong enough to warrant giving Trump 4 more years without having to endure a real democratic contest for reelection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/cJRkGNN.jpg)
